It denotes a need for vigilance, yes, but I wouldn't say concern. Nothing has changed. Canadians are flirting with the NDP but their default is still the nice "safe" options they usually fall back on. I've always known this, and the Liberal party getting a bit of a bump from a high-profile leader is not unexpected.

I've been telling everyone I know that the NDP is going to win the next election and it's not because OMG! We're leading in a few polls! We'll never go down again!!! I have this confidence because I see the party working hard and acting smart, and basically doing a better job than I've ever seen in my lifetime, and I can see that our opposition is riddled with weaknesses, despite the respectability factor of being the "big two". We are outperforming them.

Granted, it's not impossible that Justin will grow into the job of leader in a stunningly unprecedented way, but I see no evidence of that at the moment. Unless that happens I'm sticking with my prediction. The NDP will suffer some slings and arrows along the way, but it will continue to outperform the Cons and the Libs and in the end, people will choose us.

Mind you, I'm also predicting another stock market crash, larger than the last, which will give the NDP renewed credibility as the defender of the little guy. That's a part of my analysis that not everyone may share.

The NANO polling has always been higher for Liberals, and lower for the NDP. And Nanos has been the outier in comparison to other pollsters in this regard.

As usual, the NDP will have to fight hard against the corporate media and power brokers in this country in their quest to ensure only Liberals or Conservatives form federal govt. Crony capitalism lives on and is well in Canada.

Yep, Ekos at least acknowldges that they over value the Green Party, nanos does the same with the liberals, but has his head in the sand.

It denotes a need for vigilance, yes, but I wouldn't say concern. Nothing has changed. Canadians are flirting with the NDP but their default is still the nice "safe" options they usually fall back on. I've always known this, and the Liberal party getting a bit of a bump from a high-profile leader is not unexpected.

I've been telling everyone I know that the NDP is going to win the next election and it's not because OMG! We're leading in a few polls! We'll never go down again!!! I have this confidence because I see the party working hard and acting smart, and basically doing a better job than I've ever seen in my lifetime, and I can see that our opposition is riddled with weaknesses, despite the respectability factor of being the "big two". We are outperforming them.

Granted, it's not impossible that Justin will grow into the job of leader in a stunningly unprecedented way, but I see no evidence of that at the moment. Unless that happens I'm sticking with my prediction. The NDP will suffer some slings and arrows along the way, but it will continue to outperform the Cons and the Libs and in the end, people will choose us.

Mind you, I'm also predicting another stock market crash, larger than the last, which will give the NDP renewed credibility as the defender of the little guy. That's a part of my analysis that not everyone may share.

I agree, I'm amazed at how the NDP and Mulcair have been doing. Its even looking like Mulcair will get his way on piping Alberta Oil east and getting value added Jobs thank to the mainline pipeline changing one of thier piperlines from gas to oil. Anywhere from 500,000 to 1 million barrells a day.

I mean everything almost Mulcair seems to touch turns to gold. Northern Gateways is toast, I think the Nexen Deal is will be toast, the Tories are getting roasted over the F-35s, the Tories are backing off at least partially on unemployment insurence, and so on.

Not saying he's winning on his own, but the public profile and so on that he's provided has had a major impact.

Even most journalists admit he's the most effective Official Opposition Leader Harper ever faced.

It's too bad Mulcair doesn't have a direct profile with the people. He's actually a good speaker when he's more loose and off the cuff. And Brachina is right about some of his achievements in his brief time as opposition leader. We ought to contrast that with the Liberal record in opposition.

In simple terms. Not wonky. "We stopped a dangerous pipeline" and "we stopped a huge sellout to China on oil" are both easy to understand.

The party dumped the peace movement but then they didn't need it when they were grabbing for the brass ring on the centre pole.

However I doubt if the BC numbers are close to reality.

Interesting that as the party drops its socialist and peace traditions the puppet masters pull a celebrity Liberal out of the hat. But don't worry nobody cares about those issues they are not worth expending political capital on.

I know you are right Jan, but frankly, every now and again, I just have these moments of terrified, irrational, panic. I think Tom is going to prove overwhelmingly formidable on the campaing stump. He is quick, tough, and warm. I know people will pick that up. I appreciate though that you posted a reply. And regarding manor born, what gets me about Trudeau is he doesn't even think he has to deny it. Take abouta 1%er!

I don't think the public is fully buying the NDP's sudden conversion to "centrism" and that is where some of the failure has occurred. Personally, I don't believe all of it either, because the NDP still seems like its play acting on being in favour of trade or being in favour of resource development, at the same time as it launches the rhetorical bombs of before. The other problem is that while the Tories no longer have control of the agenda, the NDP has been moving further and further onto the issues turf of ideas that play well for the right. While the NDP can build credibility on taxes, F-35s, what-have-you from thorough, consistent work; this issues will continue to play badly for the left for many years. So by willingfully moving onto the issues ground of things that work for your opponent you do bring them under some pressure, you also leave the conversation on a topic that works better in the polls for them. As such, the NDP needs to figure out how to give some of its bread and butter issues more profile (namely health care, the NDP can beat up the Conservatives all day on that file and other social development ones) and work those back into the media line-up. Have some stories that play well for the NDP in the media playing against those where you are trying to make the Tories lose ground and you combine strength with strength. Lastly, the party has desperately got to soften up Tom's image. Make him look like he actually knows how to have fun. Make him look like someone that has the ability to connect. Otherwise, people are going to continue believing that he is some kind of angry lawyer willing to tear out Harper's heart/or paycheck at a divorce hearing or something like that. One place Mulcair shines is when he is portrayed as the defender of the little guy. His ability to take on a bully on behalf of those less well placed to defend themselves, is what has made him such a formidable politician.

While I'm in rant mode, here's how I think the NDP should resolve the omnibus budget problem too. Most Canadians don't care that the government is undermining democracy and the role of the opposition, all they know is that the Conservatives are in government and to a certain exten they can do as they please (i.e. govern). Most Canadians wouldn't care period, politics is boring and budget politics is worse. However, most Canadians also probably realise that what Harper is doing is wrong, so I think what they want or would react positively too is a punishment that befits the crime. In this instance, Harper is disrespecting democracy by rendering the role of the opposition obsolete and by not submitting his bills to proper oversight. Solution? Realise that Harper has the power to do that (with a majority in the House) but deny him unanimous consent on any motion or bill until he opens up the budget to democratic oversight. No going to the bathroom, noadjournments, no correction of spelling errors, nothing, unless Harper musters the votes. No unanimous consent period. Let everything go to a vote. Want to be a prick? Repeat or slow up the voting process, just for fun. Next, take advantage of the NDP's procedural leverage in the house, to unpredictably make the house work longer hours. Why? The NDP has the numbers that they can play this war of attrition game, but the other non-Conservative parties do not. Also, Canadians are not going to be upset if their Parliamentarians work longer hours. Canadians think they are getting a better deal out of Parliamentarians if they make them work. Give Canadians some good political theatre. Make life unpleasant and unpredictable for the Conservatives. Take time away from their ability to relax, organise, spend time with their families, get drunk with their mistresses, whatever until they make a token gesture or two towards respecting democracy. Canadians would love this. It is a good punch and judy show. Make the punishment fit the crime.

I just don't think the Canadian public really knows Mulcair, period. I don't think they know Trudeau either. But Trudeau has a lot of mythmaking going his way. Mulcair, the myths are actually cutting against him. For a guy who took on the separatists provincially, I see a lot of pundits calling him soft on separatism, and the ridiculousness is never really addressed by anyone. I don't think the pundits will ever love any New Democrat (except a dead one, unfortunately), which is why he has to be engaging with people directly.

"I don't think the pundits will ever love any New Democrat (except a dead one, unfortunately), which is why he has to be engaging with people directly."

That is EXACTLY right! And, when he does that, he will connect. I have yet to see Tom scowling in Public. He just doesn't do it. Look at the Stampede. He showed how comfortable he was in his own sking, and how genuine he is. This is his secret weapon.

It's too bad Mulcair doesn't have a direct profile with the people. He's actually a good speaker when he's more loose and off the cuff. And Brachina is right about some of his achievements in his brief time as opposition leader. We ought to contrast that with the Liberal record in opposition.

In simple terms. Not wonky. "We stopped a dangerous pipeline" and "we stopped a huge sellout to China on oil" are both easy to understand.

The Liberals greatest asset is peoples ignorance, I know people who give Justin credit for things Mulcair has done or taken the lead on. This is what sickens people like Gerald Caplan and people like me. The shear ignorance of the Canadians is amazing.

The NDP stands to lose support if it doesn't speak up on issues like Israel/Palestine and the recent seizure of a Gaza-bound boat loaded with humanitarian supplies. I thought the silence of the NDP on this is absolutely disgraceful.

Lastly, the party has desperately got to soften up Tom's image. Make him look like he actually knows how to have fun. Make him look like someone that has the ability to connect. Otherwise, people are going to continue believing that he is some kind of angry lawyer willing to tear out Harper's heart/or paycheck at a divorce hearing or something like that. One place Mulcair shines is when he is portrayed as the defender of the little guy. His ability to take on a bully on behalf of those less well placed to defend themselves, is what has made him such a formidable politician.

You have to be careful with that. Remember that Tom is not Jack. Jack was happy, Tom is a pitbull, and if we try to present an image of Tom as something he's not, then voters will see right through that. Remember also that until the last 2 weeks of the federal election campaign, Jack Layton was "a used car salesman." A few minor tweaks may be in order here or there, but a make-over could be risky.

Besides, as has been pointed out, Mulcair was at the Calgary Stampede and came across looking pretty good there.

It's early yet. The real problem is money. Even when the NDP was #1 in the polls and the Libs were in the basement, the Libs were still raking in greater donation money than was the NDP.

Really? I know that the Liberals relied more on corporate donations and the Conservative and NDP more on individual, and the removal of the vote subsidy isn't helping them much either. Have they managed to turn that around?

Keep in mind also that the NDP fundraising ability was hampered by the leadership race, which the Liberals are yet to go into.

You have to be careful with that. Remember that Tom is not Jack. Jack was happy, Tom is a pitbull, and if we try to present an image of Tom as something he's not, then voters will see right through that. Remember also that until the last 2 weeks of the federal election campaign, Jack Layton was "a used car salesman." A few minor tweaks may be in order here or there, but a make-over could be risky.

Besides, as has been pointed out, Mulcair was at the Calgary Stampede and came across looking pretty good there.

Tom can absolutely humiliate someone in a debate. I don't know that I'd describe him as a pitbull. But your point is important: Tom has to be authentic above everything else.

I went to a few events during the leadership race mostly to ask questions. He didn't convince me to make him my top choice in the leadership race, but he did have moments where he inspired people, made people laugh, and really connected with people. He just needs to do more of it.

Seems I should make a timely reminder about how polls work-- don't have much time now though.

Polls are opt in and only about 1% agree to do them. If one group is more motivated than the others they warp the polls. At election time the polls get more accurate because usually most parties are more equally motivated. Right now it is the Liberals paying the most attention and the most exited to do polls when others have other things to do. Consequently they have a huge bump in the polls. However these things don't last.

I question bounces in polls for conventions generally maybe they don't actually happen-- it is possible that this is what it is always-- over-representation of a motivated group that slides off after the hot period.

All that said the NDP has not sealed the deal and to do so it needs a second election in the top two -- preferably in the first position -- in order to clearly establish a permanent shift in the political landscape.

The NDP could also be doing better in communications right now in terms of a real strategy to get people thinking about substance as that will motivate NDP supporters and expose the other parties' shell games. The NDP needs to be everywhere on policy and they are a little too quiet right now. They cannot afford to be.

It's early yet. The real problem is money. Even when the NDP was #1 in the polls and the Libs were in the basement, the Libs were still raking in greater donation money than was the NDP.

Really? I know that the Liberals relied more on corporate donations and the Conservative and NDP more on individual, and the removal of the vote subsidy isn't helping them much either. Have they managed to turn that around?

I was basing that on the last quarter results from Election Canada, which showed the Cons first, the Libs second, the NDP third. Both the Libs and NDP were far behind the Cons, but the Libs still came out ahead of the NDP. It was a couple of months ago that I last checked, so perhaps, if a newer quarterly donation report has come out, this has changed.

It was greater by all of a hundred grand over the NDP and the Liberals have much greater expenses still. The NDP also get more in per voter subsides which while deminishing are still more then enough to give the NDP the edge in combined funding for that quarter. The NDP also gets more from the other catogory, stuff like renting outspace in thier HQ building which is greater then what the
Liberals get. The truth is expecting the NDP to pull in Tory level dollar when the Tory's are backed by the 1% and socon zealots who would sell thier homes if it meant an end to gay marriage is unrealistic and unneeded, all we need is enough money to get out point accross and a while designed commenications.

Look at the Obama/Romney battle for example, Romney is hugely outspending Obama, but Obama is still spending enough to get his point across so Romney had no advantage really. Romney's debate victory did far more then his ad spending spree.

My point is there are diminishing returns at a certain point. People over value the influence of the Tory ads in previous attack campaigns.

Iggy didn't drop like a stone till Jack beat him in the debates, the ads only helped reinforce Jack's point. Against Dion the ads only helped bring to the,fore something that would have beaten Dion anyway, he was running as an eviromental champion when he was aweful enviroment minister. Ads or no ads it was a contradiction he couldn't survive.

I am just upset so many people i meet are so giddy bout Justin. Celebrity is all so many know these days..But what do you expect when the country is full of stupid uninformed people who care more about Jersey shore or what the special at teh drive thru is than what effects thei rlife. It is heartbreaking thinking the NDP had a chance to form government in 2015 to realise now the reality if Justin gets picked as Liberal leader the NDP will go back down to being a 3rd or 4th party again..

I am just upset so many people i meet are so giddy bout Justin. Celebrity is all so many know these days..But what do you expect when the country is full of stupid uninformed people who care more about Jersey shore or what the special at teh drive thru is than what effects thei rlife. It is heartbreaking thinking the NDP had a chance to form government in 2015 to realise now the reality if Justin gets picked as Liberal leader the NDP will go back down to being a 3rd or 4th party again..

It's early yet. And people are smarter than you think. In the end they'll choose Mulcair and the NDP over Trudeau and the Liberals because Mulcair and the NDP are competent. People don't want giddy. They want competence.

I am just upset so many people i meet are so giddy bout Justin. Celebrity is all so many know these days..But what do you expect when the country is full of stupid uninformed people who care more about Jersey shore or what the special at teh drive thru is than what effects thei rlife. It is heartbreaking thinking the NDP had a chance to form government in 2015 to realise now the reality if Justin gets picked as Liberal leader the NDP will go back down to being a 3rd or 4th party again..

Well the thing about celebrities is people enjoy seeing them crash and burn as much as they like seeing them rise. Justin Trudeau is the Vanilla Ice/Villy Vanilli of Canadian politics, he's the hottest thing until people discover he's nothing, but a poser and then he spends the rest of his life as the butt of jokes.

Sings *Blame it on the NDP that falls at night , but what ever you do, don't put the blame on you, blame it on the NDP yeah,,yeah!*. *Ice, Ice Justin*

Seriously he's a one hit wonder and that hit is about to fall off the charts.

Think about this Justin was looking at 39% what just last month, now his just around 30% and around or less then Mulcair in many areas such as spending tax dollars and that's with Liberal loving Nanos. He's peaked already and the only question is is how soon will the descent begin and how low it will go when people became disillusioned. Some people are starting to wakeup and question, just as they did with the CAQ. Remember the CAQ was 60's at the beginning, when they were,just a fantasy.

Justin is fantasy and fantasies always end. That's when people turn to the grownups like Mulcair.

Still those of you who use twitter or meet these people that are excited about Justin, expose him for being a poser and mock his record, remind them of all Justin's support for the Harper Adgenda during the minoroty, and so on. Don't project fear, project distain for Justin, and humour at the persons Trudeau Mania. That's how you beat a phony.

The NDP also get more in per voter subsides which while deminishing are still more then enough to give the NDP the edge in combined funding for that quarter.

I thought the per voter subsidies came to an end a while ago in the Con's first budget after getting the majority.

Brachina wrote:

The NDP also gets more from the other catogory, stuff like renting outspace in thier HQ building which is greater then what the Liberals get.

I wasn't aware of that. I had heard that they and/or the Ont NDP had properties that they would sometimes use as collateral for loans to finance campaigns, but this is the first I've heard of them being a landlord. What's your source for that information?

Brachina wrote:

The truth is expecting the NDP to pull in Tory level dollar when the Tory's are backed by the 1% and socon zealots who would sell thier homes if it meant an end to gay marriage is unrealistic and unneeded, all we need is enough money to get out point accross and a while designed commenications.

The 1% comment assumes that there's a few who donate great amounts to the Cons, putting them over the edge. In fact, they have a higher number of donors than the NDP does. Admittedly, when one calculates the average per person donation from the numbers, it is true that it works out to each donor giving more than each donor for the NDP, but it's still not hugely lopsided. Regarding the Liberals, they too have more donors than the NDP, but on average each donor to the Liberals gives less than does each donor to the NDP. Still, they reaped in more cash because they had more donors. Here were the numbers from June:

NDP:

Total contributions ($) 1,743,862.40Total number of contributors 18,478

So, total contributions divided by # of contributors = 94.38 per contributor for the quarter.

Libs:

Total contributions ($) 1,807,092.36Total number of contributors 22,611

So, total contributions divided by # of contributors = 79.92 per contributor for the quarter.

Cons:

Total contributions ($) 3,746,366.18Total number of contributors 28,790

So, total contributions divided by # of contributors = 130.12 per contributor for the quarter.

I think those on the left should be just as passionate about creating an egalitarian society as those on the right are about creating a neoliberal society. I don't buy that it is impossible to compete on fundraising with parties who hold socially conservative and/or neoliberal ideas. There are limits to how much people can donate, and while the Con donors do donate more on average, it still isn't the maximum of $1,100 a year. From the numbers above, the average Con donor was giving $520.48 per year, whereas the average NDP donor was giving $377.52 per year, and the average Liberal donor was giving 319.68 per year (I multiplied the above quarter #s by four). The Liberals overall beat the NDP because they had more donors, in spite of their per donor contributions being less. I myself give $240.00 per year to the federal NDP (and the same to the Ont NDP), via a $20 per month donation to each. So, I'm below the average. But, my hope is that a far higher number of people will kick in even small amounts to bring the total up closer to the level the Cons have. I don't think it's impossible (IE, no one has to "mortgage their house"). In a nation of over thirty million people, surly more could commit a few bucks a month toward electing a social democratic government that will protect healthcare, provide opportunity, and close the gap between the rich and the poor. This should be more inspiring to more people than are the neoliberal and/or the socially conservative big-business policies of other parties.

Anyway, I stand by my statement that money is a problem for the NDP when compared with the Liberals and especially when compared with the Conservatives.

Despite all the toxic qualities that the Liberal brand picked up (arrogance, entitlement, broken promises, campaign-left-govern-right), underneath all that they still have a strong brand built up that can be revived with the right combination of nostalgia and outsider-ism.

Competence is a part of the Liberal brand. (Deservedly or not.) It isn't for the NDP, at least not in Ontario. (Deservedly or not.)

A lot of us expected that we'd be battling both Conservatives and Liberals to make real reforms to the political system. Anyone who thought this would be a two party race was kidding themselves, and falling into the same trap that the Liberals made in the first place. Arrogance and entitlement is their thing, not ours. We take every political opponent seriously, and fight for every vote we get.

One place Mulcair can't let up is on the economy. I know several voters that think the Tories are corrupt, and they don't respect democracy, and that there social conservatism scares them (or at least turns them off), but they don't want to put someone else in power when they feel the Tories can get the job done on the economy. Even when the Tories botch economic files, the feeling is, that the alternative would be worse. The NDP is seen as not knowing what its talking about on the economy. Focussing on marginal issues or marginal positions to the major issues of the day and hence not relevant or out of step/out of touch. The centrist on economic issues conversion is a laboured one. As has the NDP's conversion on other files. I think the party is also risking a grave mistake by putting such a right-wing turn on some of its foreign policies. Why? Simple, no one in the average Canadian public turns their vote on foreign policy matters. Domestic policy is all that matters to the average voter. Foreign policy however, is very important to the NDP base. By turning rightist or even hawkish on NDP foreign policy, the party is risking alienating its base; in the same way that turning right on economic policy risks alienating its base. The difference lies in the fact that shifting foreign policy shifts no votes, but shifting domestic policy does.

I don't think I have ever thanked you for the analysis you do with the polls. Thanks very much. I agree with you about how frustrating it is reading how people would vote Lib because of Trudeau with no idea where he stands on anything or what he'd actually do. It just goes to show that it is going to be up to the NDP to show people this time around what the differences are and what you get if you vote Lib. This has always been true, but maybe with Trudeau as leader it will give the NDP a real chance to make the case beacause you know the LPC will try to sell Trudeau as change. Messagin, messaging, messaging, this is what it is going to be about. The nice thing that we have going for us is Tom Mulcair. He's smart, people like him once they get to know him, and most importatnly he isnt' afraid of anything. We need to start being like him too.

The survey of 422 randomly selected voters in Durham suggests that Conservative candidate Erin O’Toole would have taken 46 per cent of the ballots if the vote had been held last week. NDP candidate Larry O’Connor had the support of 24 per cent of respondents while Liberal Grant Humes had 20 per cent.

What you wrote makes sense and my answer is, like it always does. This time the NDP MUST talk about what voting Liberal actually means. We need to define the once and for all as the Corporate lackeys that they actaully are. I still say this election is going to be about messaging. We simply have to do an effective job at this. It isn't good enough to discuss policy. People have got to be shown what voting Lib means.

I'm only temporarily concerned about Justin Trudeau. Once the fix is in, the NDP is going to have to show he's just as hypocritical and amoral as the Liberals that came before him. His voting record should be a good help in this regard. With so little political experience or gravitas he is going to have to rely on bluster a lot. The NDP can call him on his bluff at its most embarassing and inappropriate. The most damning thing, from my perspective, for a NEW, YOUNG leader would be to have no new ideas or represent no change. That destroys any advantage he supposedly has, especially if his hypocrisy puts him beyond appeals to idealism. Lastly, his most obvious weakness, inexperience, is a sharp sword to have him fall on...at the right moment.

Trudeau hyped by Liberal media boosters could poll up to majority territory. Then as he is brought down by both NDP and Conservative exposures of his weaknesses he fall to below the amount of support needed to win. The distraction can help the Conservatives. The confusion in voters' minds as to which opposition party is best able to take out the Cons sets in and in the end we could come out pretty much where we are now. The Liberals on election day may not be able to improve much but the confusion, distraction and splits allow the Conservatives to win again. those thinking this could not happen are being too optimistic. Trudeau does not need to win to cause a problem -- he can simply stall the progress of the NDP to take out the Cons.

Trudeau hyped by Liberal media boosters could poll up to majority territory. Then as he is brought down by both NDP and Conservative exposures of his weaknesses he fall to below the amount of support needed to win. The distraction can help the Conservatives. The confusion in voters' minds as to which opposition party is best able to take out the Cons sets in and in the end we could come out pretty much where we are now. The Liberals on election day may not be able to improve much but the confusion, distraction and splits allow the Conservatives to win again. those thinking this could not happen are being too optimistic. Trudeau does not need to win to cause a problem -- he can simply stall the progress of the NDP to take out the Cons.

All this says is that once again the NDP has to be a more attractive alternative to liberal voters than the Liberal Party. I'm hopeful Tom can do that.

All this says is that once again the NDP has to be a more attractive alternative to liberal voters than the Liberal Party. I'm hopeful Tom can do that.

But how do they attract the voters who used to vote Liberal without becoming a liberal party in everything except name? The political calculations are of course easy. There are more voters in the middle of the spectrum so ergo the NDP must move to the centre. If successful the NDP will displace the Liberals and becomes the Northern Democratic Party and then they will get to run as the lesser of evils no matter what their record is. That seems to be many partisan NDP supporters favourite fantasy.

Canada needs constitutional reform or at bare minimum a change to the electoral system. We are way beyond "consultation" on electoral systems. Some form of MMP is needed for the 2019 election not as something to talk about and dither on till at least 2023. Will any party dare to run with a platform promising to implement MMP not just "study" it. Its a good idea that needs enacting not something to talk about.

And over at Pundit's Guide, Alice reported that the NDP surpassed the Liberals in fund-raising during the third quarter of 2012.

felixr...

The NDP will succeed in taking votes from the Liberals by running such a slate of impressive candidates that the voters will have the confidence that voting NDP in 2015 will be a legitimate choice for getting rid of the Conservatives. That's never happened before.

The combination of a Leader that Canadians think is up to the job to be Prime Minister, the slate of great candidates, and the funds raised that will finance a campaign that's never been seen before...THAT is the way to win over enough voters to become government.